France'S Hollande Defends Early Troop Pullout From Afghanistan

[News_Editor]

France's Hollande defends early troop pullout from Afghanistan < br />

2012-05-26 02:42:02 GMT+7 (ICT)

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- During a surprise visit to Afghanistan on Friday, President François Hollande of France defended his decision to withdraw French combat troops two years before the rest of the U.S.-led force in Afghanistan, saying the mission against insurgents is almost accomplished.

Accompanied by Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, Hollande arrived in the Afghan capital of Kabul on Friday morning to meet with French troops, pay his respects to the 83 French soldiers killed in the war, and meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Hollande has received criticism for going ahead with his election pledge to pull out French combat troops by the end of 2012, a year earlier than the deadline set by former president Nicolas Sarkozy and two years before the 130,000-strong U.S.-led NATO force is scheduled to withdraw.

"The mission of fighting terrorism and chasing out the Taliban is close to being accomplished," Hollande said in Kabul. "This is something we can be very proud of." With about 3,300 soldiers, France is the fifth largest contributor to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Hollande wants to withdraw 2,000 of them by the end of the year, leaving only 1,300 non-combat troops.

The new French president said the withdrawal, which he called a 'sovereign decision', will take place in close consultation with the Afghan government and NATO allies. The remaining 1,300 non-combat troops will oversee the repatriation of equipment, provide support and train Afghan security forces.

U.S. President Barack Obama previously ordered a drawdown of 23,000 U.S. troops by the end of this summer, and foreign combat troops are due to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The ISAF force currently includes some 90,000 U.S. soldiers and more than 9,500 British soldiers.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-05-26

[geriatrickid]

It is unfortunate that the French are unable to honour their agreement. It is fortunate for the French that the Commonwealth and the USA honoured their word 70+ years ago.

[Huayrat]

Raising the white flag per usual.. They r born with it in hand

[Scott]

A post has been deleted. Please stay on the topic.

[Exsexyman]

Raising the white flag per usual.. They r born with it in hand

Pathetic comment to be honest, but sadly typical of the average Sun reader mentality. Congratulations to the new French Prime Minister for putting the interests of his countrymen before the interests of American drug barons. Setting an example to the rest of the European poodles who are slavishly getting down on their knees. No wonder America is held in such contempt by the rest of the educated civilised world. "Change we can believe in!" What a laugh! Pass the sick bag.

[Morch]

Raising the white flag per usual.. They r born with it in hand

Pathetic comment to be honest, but sadly typical of the average Sun reader mentality. Congratulations to the new French Prime Minister for putting the interests of his countrymen before the interests of American drug barons. Setting an example to the rest of the European poodles who are slavishly getting down on their knees. No wonder America is held in such contempt by the rest of the educated civilised world. "Change we can believe in!" What a laugh! Pass the sick bag.

I do believe he is (like almost ANY other politician), taking care of his own interests first, his country's second. Well, they tend to mix those two sometimes.

While French bashing isn't in order (pretty sure bet not all voters support this move), talk of "American drug barons" and playing spokeman for the "rest of the educated civilized world" isn't much different.

I wonder how would people react if the USA pulled out troops early, leaving its allies to fend on their own.

[Scott]

I think we can speculate until the cows come home, however, this topic is about France, not America. I think opinions can be expressed without bashing any country.

[Steely Dan]

This move though predictable demonstrates that the opinion of the French Muslim population, who voted for Hollande in large numbers is more important to him than any commitments France may have made vis foreign policy. I just hope France don't find they need bailing out by America in the near future or they may well be disappointed.

[folium]

This move though predictable demonstrates that the opinion of the French Muslim population, who voted for Hollande in large numbers is more important to him than any commitments France may have made vis foreign policy. I just hope France don't find they need bailing out by America in the near future or they may well be disappointed.

Opinion poll carried out by Ifop in late 2011 showed 76% in favour of a French pullout from Afghanistan, with 44% wanting it immediate and a further 35% in 2012 or 2013 (ie before the original exit date of 2014 in tandem with the US).

Therefore it was hardly a tough call for Hollande to make and merely follows the actions of the Dutch (withdrew 2010) and Canada (2011).

Sadly the Afghan campaign has suffered from muddled political objectives, Iraqi distractions, and a failure to sell the war to domestic audiences. Now compounded by economic considerations, the swing of public opinion against the war puts immense pressure on democratic politicians.

[flying]

Support troops by not supporting the lies that are getting them killed.

I think the French got this one right....a little later than need be but at least they *see*

[geriatrickid]

This move though predictable demonstrates that the opinion of the French Muslim population, who voted for Hollande in large numbers is more important to him than any commitments France may have made vis foreign policy. I just hope France don't find they need bailing out by America in the near future or they may well be disappointed.

Opinion poll carried out by Ifop in late 2011 showed 76% in favour of a French pullout from Afghanistan, with 44% wanting it immediate and a further 35% in 2012 or 2013 (ie before the original exit date of 2014 in tandem with the US).

Therefore it was hardly a tough call for Hollande to make and merely follows the actions of the Dutch (withdrew 2010) and Canada (2011).

Sadly the Afghan campaign has suffered from muddled political objectives, Iraqi distractions, and a failure to sell the war to domestic audiences. Now compounded by economic considerations, the swing of public opinion against the war puts immense pressure on democratic politicians.

The French saw a minimal amount of action in Afghanistan As such, they have a moral responsibility to support the 3 allies that bore the brunt of action in AFghanistan during the draw down. Sentiment is very strong in the USA, UK and Canada to withdraw all troops, yet these governments are honouring their commitments to ensure an effective transition. The French retreat is sheer cowardice and an attempt to curry favour with certain vocal interest groups in France. For the record, the death toll for the 3 countries that carried the bulk of fighting were as follows; United States 1,886, UK 395 and Canada 158.

Yes, it is tragic that 86 French soldiers died in Afghanistan, but it is telling that many other countries paid a much higher price per contingent. Poland, Australia, Denmark, the Nederlands all took it harder (as a % of personnel) than the French and yet none of these countries abandoned their allies. The French, Italians and Germans sought out the least dangerous areas to place their personnel and left the nasty zones of Kandahar to the UK, Canada and USA. Kandahar was the killing zone and the French wouldn't go there. The Australians were not afraid of Kandahar and provided their special ops teams to provide cover to the Canadian and US forces stationed there, while the French and some other Europeans stayed safe. And now the French leave. They won't even provide protection for NGOs. This speaks volumes.

I am sorry, but I have absolutely no use for the current French government and its position on this matter. As usual, the responsibility for keeping the EU safe in future will once again fall upon the weary shoulders of the UK, Nederlands and Denmark. It is so typical. Some things never change. I suppose when the national psyche is influenced by standing up to totalitarian bullies in the past, it influences the political policies of future generations.

[flying]

The French retreat is sheer cowardice and an attempt to curry favour with certain vocal interest groups in France.

I stopped reading there because if it is cowardice then the rest display extreme stupidity for staying.

For What? To then leave at a predetermined date?

I have never heard such ignorance as to spend lives with a predetermined exit date.

This will end the same as all incursions into that region....Lives wasted

PS: I am not French

Edited May 27, 2012 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

I have never heard such ignorance as to spend lives with a predetermined exit date.

I do not agree with you on much, but this is the exception. Without victory, telling the enemy when your troops will be withdrawing in advance is the height of stupidity.

[bigbamboo]

Raising the white flag per usual.. They r born with it in hand

Pathetic comment to be honest, but sadly typical of the average Sun reader mentality. Congratulations to the new French Prime Minister for putting the interests of his countrymen before the interests of American drug barons. Setting an example to the rest of the European poodles who are slavishly getting down on their knees. No wonder America is held in such contempt by the rest of the educated civilised world. "Change we can believe in!" What a laugh! Pass the sick bag.

I do believe he is (like almost ANY other politician), taking care of his own interests first, his country's second. Well, they tend to mix those two sometimes.

While French bashing isn't in order (pretty sure bet not all voters support this move), talk of "American drug barons" and playing spokeman for the "rest of the educated civilized world" isn't much different.

I wonder how would people react if the USA pulled out troops early, leaving its allies to fend on their own.

As the French say, "Pas delle yeux Rhone que nous."

Edited May 27, 2012 by bigbamboo

[Scott]

Please be aware of the following, which is taken from the forum rules:

English is the only acceptable language, except within the Thai language forum, where of course using Thai is allowed.

[folium]

The French saw a minimal amount of action in Afghanistan As such, they have a moral responsibility to support the 3 allies that bore the brunt of action in AFghanistan during the draw down. Sentiment is very strong in the USA, UK and Canada to withdraw all troops, yet these governments are honouring their commitments to ensure an effective transition. The French retreat is sheer cowardice and an attempt to curry favour with certain vocal interest groups in France. For the record, the death toll for the 3 countries that carried the bulk of fighting were as follows; United States 1,886, UK 395 and Canada 158.

Yes, it is tragic that 86 French soldiers died in Afghanistan, but it is telling that many other countries paid a much higher price per contingent. Poland, Australia, Denmark, the Nederlands all took it harder (as a % of personnel) than the French and yet none of these countries abandoned their allies. The French, Italians and Germans sought out the least dangerous areas to place their personnel and left the nasty zones of Kandahar to the UK, Canada and USA. Kandahar was the killing zone and the French wouldn't go there. The Australians were not afraid of Kandahar and provided their special ops teams to provide cover to the Canadian and US forces stationed there, while the French and some other Europeans stayed safe. And now the French leave. They won't even provide protection for NGOs. This speaks volumes.

I am sorry, but I have absolutely no use for the current French government and its position on this matter. As usual, the responsibility for keeping the EU safe in future will once again fall upon the weary shoulders of the UK, Nederlands and Denmark. It is so typical. Some things never change. I suppose when the national psyche is influenced by standing up to totalitarian bullies in the past, it influences the political policies of future generations.

What a load of absolute nonsense!

While undoubtedly much of the French contingent within ISAF was initially deployed to quieter areas of Afghanistan, their deployment to and assumption of TAOR Kapisa in 2008 saw a swift jump in casualties as, contrary to your statements, they took on one of the hardest areas in country.

The French SF have been playing a key role in partnership with the other SF contingents throughout the Helmand and Kandahar areas. Their air force contingent based out of Kandahar have also clocked up hours of close air support and have won the praises of many on the ground for their timely intervention. See below for a couple of articles highlighting your idea of French "cowardice",

http://www.thestar.com/article/301987--travels-with-french-special-forces-in-kandahar

http://www.stripes.com/news/french-military-effort-in-afghanistan-earning-respect-of-u-s-troops-1.96007

It has obviously escaped your notice but Canadian combat ops in Afghanistan ended in July 2011, leaving some 950 troops in a training role. As the French intend to leave 1400 troops in training and logistic roles post 31 Dec 2012, not quite sure where that leaves your claims.

You claim that Poland, Denmark, Australia and Netherlands haven't bugged out. Well the Dutch left in Aug 2010 see below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10829837

The Poles plan to have all combat troops out of Afghanistan this year.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a5bd12d0-7fc7-11df-91b4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1w42MEKVS

Not sure where the idea that EU security rests on the UK, Netherlands and Denmark. While the UK does play a shrinking but still material role, the other 2 have hardly ever been first-rate players, apart from SF and specialized troops.

"when the national psyche is influenced by standing up to totalitarian bullies in the past, it influences the political policies of future generations". ??

Really not sure what this is all about (must be referring to UK, Australia & USA?), but I presume you refer to WW2 when Denmark held out for 2 hours and lost 16 killed (about the same as Thailand's "resistance" to the Japanese invasion), and the Danish government and Crown then cooperated with the Nazis until August 1943, a stance condemned as "morally unjustifiable" by Prime Minister Rasmussen in 2003. Also some 6,000 Danes joined the SS Danish Freikorps and fought on the Eastern front.

Similarly while Holland suffered far more from the German invasion and occupation, some 55,000 Dutch (the second largest contingent of non-Germans in the SS) answered the call of posters like below and were formed up in the SS Nordland Division, and were the final defenders of the Reichstag, Berlin in April 1945.

And I'm not even French nor even a great fan of theirs!! Though I would love to see you explain your point of view to a poilu from 1er RIMa, it would be a fairly short but fully deserved learning experience!

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. Again, the thread is about France and the withdrawal from Afghanistan. WW2, Lend Lease, the Vietnam War and President Eisenhower are off-topic.

[folium]

Neat piece from the BBC about some of the logistical issues as the ISAF forces begin their pullout from Afghanistan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17999603

[geriatrickid]

No, what I wrote was not nonsense. The withdrawal of the Dutch was as per agreement and the Dutch still have assets and personnel deployed.

In fact, the Dutch have a commitment for training Afghan police. While the 2011 budget includes start-up costs, the 2012 and 2013 budgets are both set at 109m euros, and that for 2014 - 94m. The Netherlands has a total of 545 personnel deployed in Afghanistan, most of them in Kunduz(Source BBC) Yes, the Dutch military troops withdrew from combat operations, but personnel remained to facilitate an orderly withdrawal of the NATO task force. The Canadian contingent has pulled back from combat operations, but training and support is firm until 2013. Unlike the French, both countries gave a commitment and both countries have respected their agreement despite overwhelming public sentiment to pull everyone out. The French decision is unilateral and without any consideration for their supposed partners and allies.

In respect to French combat operations, please be realistic. Flying high above the ground and dropping ordinance is hardly as risky as having actual boots on the ground. The French stayed as close to Kabul, the safest spot in Afghanistan. I recognize the contribution the French made, but the reality is that when there was an all out combat operation it typically fell to the US, UK and Canada to carry out the operations. This is why those 3 countries' combat fatalities were so high. The French presence in Afghanistan hot zones, typically lay with logistics and air support. The French could have easily reduced their presence while still maintaining support for the protection of aid initiatives and NGOs. This is what the Dutch and Canadians have done.

I appreciate that this thread is not about nations' conduct in WWII, but the French have a long history of folding when the pressure is on and the abandonment of a longstanding understanding is in keeping with French practice.

[folium]

No, what I wrote was not nonsense. The withdrawal of the Dutch was as per agreement and the Dutch still have assets and personnel deployed.

In fact, the Dutch have a commitment for training Afghan police. While the 2011 budget includes start-up costs, the 2012 and 2013 budgets are both set at 109m euros, and that for 2014 - 94m. The Netherlands has a total of 545 personnel deployed in Afghanistan, most of them in Kunduz(Source BBC) Yes, the Dutch military troops withdrew from combat operations, but personnel remained to facilitate an orderly withdrawal of the NATO task force. The Canadian contingent has pulled back from combat operations, but training and support is firm until 2013. Unlike the French, both countries gave a commitment and both countries have respected their agreement despite overwhelming public sentiment to pull everyone out. The French decision is unilateral and without any consideration for their supposed partners and allies.

In respect to French combat operations, please be realistic. Flying high above the ground and dropping ordinance is hardly as risky as having actual boots on the ground. The French stayed as close to Kabul, the safest spot in Afghanistan. I recognize the contribution the French made, but the reality is that when there was an all out combat operation it typically fell to the US, UK and Canada to carry out the operations. This is why those 3 countries' combat fatalities were so high. The French presence in Afghanistan hot zones, typically lay with logistics and air support. The French could have easily reduced their presence while still maintaining support for the protection of aid initiatives and NGOs. This is what the Dutch and Canadians have done.

I appreciate that this thread is not about nations' conduct in WWII, but the French have a long history of folding when the pressure is on and the abandonment of a longstanding understanding is in keeping with French practice.

Unfortunately not only are you talking nonsense, but offensive nonsense to boot!

You appear to have some fixation with the French which I'm afraid is sadly misplaced in terms of Afghan commitment. If you really wanted to go after gun-shy members of ISAF, the German, Spanish or Italian contingents in the relatively quiet northern & western provinces would be fairer game. See map below:

If you wanted to criticize pullouts you should start with the Dutch, who far from pulling out as per schedule, upset the whole apple cart in 2010. Having extended their mission from 2008 to Aug 2010 the Dutch PM assured NATO that he would further extend the Dutch mission beyond Aug 2010. Despite massive political lobbying he was unable to deliver on this promise, his government collapsed and NATO had to quickly readjust to a far earlier than predicted Dutch pullout. See below:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/dutch-pullout-from-afghanistan-sparks-nato-fears-of-domino-effect/story-e6frg6so-1225833062148

As the article underlines, the Dutch pullout set the stage for the Canadians to depart, which was a major loss in terms of combat capability. Their departure in 2011 has been exacerbated by Harper's insistence that all Canadian troops are gone by early 2014, again much to NATO's disappointment. See below:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Harper+rejects+NATO+pleas+confirms+Afghanistan+pullout+2014/6654922/story.html

You seem to belittle French casualties and claim their combat role has been minimal. Their role in the Kapisa area is hardly without incident (search "French Kapisa" for video clips etc), and your claim that Kabul is " the safest spot in Afghanistan" is ludicrous given events in the last 12 months there. If you want a quiet life try Herat (Spanish/Italian) or Mazar-e-Sharif (German). The French SF troops have operated throughout southern and eastern Afghanistan in joint ISAF operations with great professionalism.

Not content with apparently labelling the French army "cowards", you then proceed to belittle the role of aviation assets in general (you sure seem to enjoy pi**ing people off). Flying jets or helicopters brings its own set of challenges and risks, while not as immediate as those experienced by the PBI (poor bloody infantry). Also if you shared your views with anyone who has called in air support that subsequently delivered, they would join the lengthening queue of people who might take your comments a tad less lightly!

Hardly surprisingly, given the unpopularity of the war with voters and the cost at a time of cutbacks and austerity, there is a slow motion rush for the exit underway, and even the Australians are adamant that they will be out before their election in 2013. "Bringing the boys home" before an election is powerful vote-winning stuff (hence the US decision to pull out 33,000 combat troops by Sept 2012, a far bigger hit than 2,000 French troops).

Every pullout has been unilateral and deeply unpopular with ISAF/NATO. Hollande campaigned on a pullout of French troops in 2012, and Sarkozy had already cut a year off their deployment and had pledged to bring them home ahead of schedule in 2013. Intrigued by your comments re protection of civilian aid projects and NGOs, both of these are now tragically few and far between, therefore not requiring much force protection.

Rarely am I an apologist for the French, but your arguments are weak, and apparently unsupported by facts.

[dionys]

What an incredible writing from both folium and geriatrickid. As interesting as both of the arguments are it leaves me somewhat perplexed as to why

Your talent is directed towards an issue, that by now should have been gone, faded away, and perhaps should not have been there in the first place. [The moderator could comment (and rightfully so) that that’s another issue. Hence allow me to stay with the issue via questions:

Why this war does have to be the longest war ever in the first place?

Why billion of dollars are wasted [no lives of solders included in this question] for such a long period of time?

Why are we trying to second-guess intensions of other sovereign nations?

Why do we want to impose democracy to another nation if they do not want it?

If the intension was to revenge the 9/11 invasion, one could safely bet that for a couple of billion dollars, a private company of mercenaries, would have killed every single one of the SOB’s responsible for it within year or so

And wasn’t this the original objective?

[folium]

What an incredible writing from both folium and geriatrickid. As interesting as both of the arguments are it leaves me somewhat perplexed as to why

Your talent is directed towards an issue, that by now should have been gone, faded away, and perhaps should not have been there in the first place. [The moderator could comment (and rightfully so) that that's another issue. Hence allow me to stay with the issue via questions:

Why this war does have to be the longest war ever in the first place?

Why billion of dollars are wasted [no lives of solders included in this question] for such a long period of time?

Why are we trying to second-guess intensions of other sovereign nations?

Why do we want to impose democracy to another nation if they do not want it?

If the intension was to revenge the 9/11 invasion, one could safely bet that for a couple of billion dollars, a private company of mercenaries, would have killed every single one of the SOB's responsible for it within year or so

And wasn't this the original objective?

Some huge questions here which would take us way off topic, so for a simple answer I repeat my last paragraph from an earlier post.

Sadly the Afghan campaign has suffered from muddled political objectives, Iraqi distractions, and a failure to sell the war to domestic audiences. Now compounded by economic considerations, the swing of public opinion against the war puts immense pressure on democratic politicians.

For a fuller answer take a look at these:

http://www.fairobserver.com/article/afghanistan-what-went-wrong-and-what-comes-next

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9057303/Afghanistan-This-terrible-war-could-have-ended-in-a-month.html

http://csis.org/publication/afghanistan-death-strategy

An interesting view on the potentially wider implications of ISAF troops pulling out:

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/03/28/world/asia/20120330-EXIT.html?ref=afghanistan#1

[Scott]

As long as the discussion remains roughly focused on France and the effect that its pullout of troops will have, the discussion can continue. Posters, however, need to be constructive and civil.

The discussion thus far has been interesting and informative.

[folium]

This move though predictable demonstrates that the opinion of the French Muslim population, who voted for Hollande in large numbers is more important to him than any commitments France may have made vis foreign policy. I just hope France don't find they need bailing out by America in the near future or they may well be disappointed.

Opinion poll carried out by Ifop in late 2011 showed 76% in favour of a French pullout from Afghanistan, with 44% wanting it immediate and a further 35% in 2012 or 2013 (ie before the original exit date of 2014 in tandem with the US).

Therefore it was hardly a tough call for Hollande to make and merely follows the actions of the Dutch (withdrew 2010) and Canada (2011).

Sadly the Afghan campaign has suffered from muddled political objectives, Iraqi distractions, and a failure to sell the war to domestic audiences. Now compounded by economic considerations, the swing of public opinion against the war puts immense pressure on democratic politicians.

A more recent poll in France (Jan 2012) showed 84% in favour of a pullout by the end of 2012. Hollande was pushing against an open door with his 2012 pledge.

The "blue on green" incidents (Afghan police/military murdering ISAF personnel) have been multiplying and having a devastating impact on public opinion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-europe-16767963

[Steely Dan]

This move though predictable demonstrates that the opinion of the French Muslim population, who voted for Hollande in large numbers is more important to him than any commitments France may have made vis foreign policy. I just hope France don't find they need bailing out by America in the near future or they may well be disappointed.

Opinion poll carried out by Ifop in late 2011 showed 76% in favour of a French pullout from Afghanistan, with 44% wanting it immediate and a further 35% in 2012 or 2013 (ie before the original exit date of 2014 in tandem with the US).

Therefore it was hardly a tough call for Hollande to make and merely follows the actions of the Dutch (withdrew 2010) and Canada (2011).

Sadly the Afghan campaign has suffered from muddled political objectives, Iraqi distractions, and a failure to sell the war to domestic audiences. Now compounded by economic considerations, the swing of public opinion against the war puts immense pressure on democratic politicians.

A more recent poll in France (Jan 2012) showed 84% in favour of a pullout by the end of 2012. Hollande was pushing against an open door with his 2012 pledge.

The "blue on green" incidents (Afghan police/military murdering ISAF personnel) have been multiplying and having a devastating impact on public opinion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-16767963

I have no problem with the concept of public opinion being against the Afghan war, much of the blame has to be put at the feet of politicians making decisions based on political expedience and losing sight of the original aims for intervention there. Going back on commitments made to allies as an electioneering issue is something entirely different though. Whilst I agree that politically Afghanistan has been mismanaged, however the original aims were laudable and if it were possible to salvage something from this mess by re-focusing on said aims then I would be all for it.

[Steely Dan]

This article is about the handover of power in 2014 and not about France's pullout per-se. It does however illustrate the clear betrayal of the ideals which we first went in with.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/26/afghan-women-security-fears-inequality

Despite what many west haters may think there has been progress made, but due to short term considerations it appears our politicians lack the stomach to see things through, which is a tragedy and a waste of the lives of our troops.

[folium]

I have no problem with the concept of public opinion being against the Afghan war, much of the blame has to be put at the feet of politicians making decisions based on political expedience and losing sight of the original aims for intervention there. Going back on commitments made to allies as an electioneering issue is something entirely different though. Whilst I agree that politically Afghanistan has been mismanaged, however the original aims were laudable and if it were possible to salvage something from this mess by re-focusing on said aims then I would be all for it.

OMG it looks like we are going to be in agreement twice in the same day, what will you tell Col?!

Afghanistan has been a sad mess, largely politically created, and is now a convenient political football to kick into touch as & when it suits. Sarkozy and Hollande played the pullout card in their electioneering, while the Australian contingent will be home in time for their 2013 elections. US wind downs are also dovetailed with political requirements.

Had the allies stuck to their original aims of crushing the Taliban and driving AQ out of the country and preferably out of business, and if the initial operations had been properly manned, equipped and resourced this could have been accomplished. The screw up at Tora Bora is symptomatic of the opportunity lost .

The chances of refocusing and achieving these aims are probably slim to none. The window of opportunity is long since closed and the political will now almost non-existent. Withdrawal is always the hardest manoeuvre to pull off and all the attention will now be on achieving this with the least grief and expense.

[Steely Dan]

OMG it looks like we are going to be in agreement twice in the same day, what will you tell Col?!

If you agree with me three times before midnight I think membership of the EDL is a fitting penance, though I will accept the British freedom party if you have objections to police dog saliva.

[folium]

OMG it looks like we are going to be in agreement twice in the same day, what will you tell Col?!

If you agree with me three times before midnight I think membership of the EDL is a fitting penance, though I will accept the British freedom party if you have objections to police dog saliva.

Looks like I dodged that bullet, though it seems that the BFP (or BF as it now is, unfortunate choice given option 4 in Urban Dictionary's BF listing) is imploding and being taken over by the EDL. Hope you hadn't paid your subs! See below:

http://southwestnationalists.blogspot.com/2012_04_01_archive.html

Check out the EDL's Latin motto "in hoc signo vinces", Rockwell, Jesuits & Wild Geese!

Looks like someone else in Afghanistan wasn't so good at dodging bullets:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18246242

All good stuff but sadly will have little real impact on the end-game in Afghanistan.

[Pakboong]

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,

And the women come out to cut up what remains,

Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." -- Rudyard Kipling.

Not much has changed.